Uhhhh ... Gosh ... Errrr ... Nope, I Got Nothin'

I'll just let it speak for itself. This, from the inimitable Iowa Hawk, is ... well ... special:

Oh, but that's not all:

http://twitchy.com/2013/05/07/meghan-mccain-any-republican-who-voted-for-sanford-but-is-against-gay-marriage-is-a-hypocrite/

http://twitchy.com/2013/05/08/generation-gestation-deleted-meghan-mccain-tweet-sparks-mockery-and-mccainhaiku/


Nope. Still got nothin'.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject: 
The Powerful Political Insights of the Paris Hilton of Pundits  

Who Cares ...

"The Completely Unedited Ramblings of an Idiot"

Pot ... Kettle

You've Come a Long Way, Baby! [UPDATED]

How about you show some respect for yourself?

Ed Morrissey has a post today describing the potential for a backlash against the "war on women" meme the Democrat Party has planned for their upcoming national convention:

If they do, I argue in my column today for The Fiscal Times, they may well find themselves hoist with their own petard, after a week of watching accomplished Republican women speaking from the dais in Tampa.  Not only does the emphasis entirely miss the issues about which voters care most in this electoral cycle, the entire argument diminishes women to, well, to exactly what Code Pink reduced them in protests at the GOP convention...

I've made it abundantly clear that I will not be voting for the Republican ticket this year (choosing instead to support my friend, Virgil Goode, on the 100% pro-life-without-exception Constitution Party ticket). Nevertheless, I will acknowledge that, when it comes to "strong women", the GOP beats the Democrats hands down.

When I see the women at the GOP convention, I see a strong, independent, self-made African-American woman who became Secretary of State through her own efforts and merit, and not because her husband used to be President. I see a strong, independent, self-made former Vice Presidential nominee who fought her way to the top against corrupt, entrenched interests in Alaska - a man's state if ever there was one, and yet who manages to be the mother of 5 kids, making her relevant to the millions of working moms who try to balance work life with home life. I see the strong, independent first Hispanic woman governor - of either party - who, after her speech last night, will surely be on most people's short list for a spot on either the top or the bottom of a future GOP presidential ticket. I see a strong, independent woman of East Indian descent who managed to get elected Governor of arguably the most conservative state in the union, South Carolina. I see a strong, independent African-American mayor from Utah who will no doubt be a future star - in her own right - in the GOP.

Meanwhile, from the other side, all I see are women whining because "it's a scary time to be a woman" (as if it's not a scary time to be anyone), and asking for government to take care of them and give them free stuff, or worse, asking the government to force other people to provide them with birth control and other free stuff. On the other side, what we see are so-called "feminists", as in the photo at the top of this post, essentially making women out to be the sum total of what's between their legs. So much for fighting against the "objectification" of women. Which leaves one shaking one's head and responding to what's left of the so-called "feminist" movement as embodied in the modern-day Democrat Party: "You've come a long way, baby!"


UPDATE
It appears these silly people REALLY ARE intent on making this election a referendum on what they see as their own sex's weakness and dependency. (Well, they've spent 4 years not addressing the most pressing concerns of the American people, so I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise that they'd spend the election season doing the same thing.) Not content to wait until their own convention, two of the least substantively important people imaginable have brought the so-called "war on women" meme to Tampa by crashing the GOP convention.

Sort of a breach of protocol, but given what these two individuals are famous for, I think class is probably asking for too much.


UPDATE (31 August 2012)

What an absolutely asinine comment from an absolutely ridiculous and utterly unaccomplished woman. Lady (and I use the term charitably), what you saw on the stage at the GOP Convention were the future leaders of your country - all of whom got where they are through their OWN merit, hard work, and perseverence. Deal with it.

Meanwhile, the Dems will be offering up as a key speaker a similarly unaccomplished 30-year-old perpetual student whose only claim to fame is that she wants the government to force the Catholic Church to pay for her contraception and that Rush Limbaugh called her a nasty name.


Yeah, I'd hold her up as a shining example of a "real" woman, too ... if I were as pathetically tethered to an outdated view of women as government-dependent "victims" as the Democrat Party is.

Pelosi: Yes, of Course, the Catholic Church Should be Forced to Cover Contraception — Even If It’s Self-Insured [UPDATED]

Good Lord! What does it take for someone to get their ass excommunicated anymore?


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
And While They're At It ...

"Ardent, Practicing Catholic" Nancy Pelosi Says She Stands With Her "Fellow Catholics" in SUPPORTING the HHS Mandate


[UPDATE]
More from The Weekly Standard.

And While They're At It ...

... the Bishops may as well go ahead and excommunicate the Harlot of Babylon ... errrrr ... I mean ... the Congresswoman from San Francisco for believing that religious freedom (the right the Founders decided to mention FIRST in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights) is a mere "excuse" standing in the way of the "fundamental right" to sex without consequences ... errrrr ... I mean ... so-called "women's health".


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
"Ardent, Practicing Catholic" Nancy Pelosi Says She Stands With Her "Fellow Catholics" in SUPPORTING the HHS Mandate

San Fran Nan the Theologian Strikes Again: Obama Has More Patience Than Biblical Job

Pelosi Says No "Common Ground" on Abortion: Calls for Scorched-Earth War Against Catholic Church, Pro-Lifers, GOP, et al

San Fran Nan the Theologian Won't Say at What Point Word Became Flesh

Pro-Abortion "Ardent, Practicing Catholic Grandmother" Just Doing What Jesus Would Do [UPDATED]

Bishop Morlino: “Speaker Pelosi is Not Called by Jesus Christ to Lead the Catholic Faithful”

Nancy Pelosi ... Dumb@$$

U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference Contradicts Pelosi's Claim That Senate Health Bill Doesn't Fund Abortion

San Fran Nan Gets Taken to the Woodshed: Speaker Pelosi’s Bishop Corrects Her Once Again

Boston-Area Priest: Pastoral/Teaching Approach Has Failed Miserably in Persuading "Pro-Choice" Catholics of Their Error"

"Ardent Practicing" Conservative Catholic Grandmother™ Calls Opponents of ObamaCare Nazis

Pelosi Accused of Muzzling Opposition to Taxpayer-Funded D.C. Abortions

Wuerl: Why I Won't Deny Pelosi CommunionPope to Speaker Pelosi: Reject Abortion Support [UPDATED]

"Conservative Catholic Grandmother"™ Pelosi Backs Down: Contraception Removed from "Stimulus Package"

"Conservative Catholic Grandmother"™ Pelosi Says Birth Control a Boon for the Economy [UPDATED]

More U.S. Bishops Issue Statements on Abortion

LA Times Columnist Lies to Cover for Pelosi

Obama Camp to Speaker Pelosi: "Shut Up, Already!"

The Follow-Up Question Brokaw Should've Asked

Pelosi: St. Augustine Agrees With Me - That's My Story and I'm Sticking to It [UPDATED]

Archbishop Chaput on Speaker Pelosi: "On the Separation of Sense and State" [UPDATED]

Biblical Scholars Challenge Pelosi's "Scripture" Quote

Pro-Abort Catholic Politicians to Receive Communion at Papal Mass [UPDATED]

"Conservative Catholic Grandmother" Pelosi Defends Removal of "God" from Flag Certificates

President Bush to Veto Stem Cell Bill

Never Mind Church Teaching, Catholic Nancy Pelosi Says ESCR "a Gift of God"

"Anti-Catholic" Pelosi Accused of Promoting "Culture of Death"

Pelosi Sings Praises of Embryo Destruction

Bishop Vasa on Nancy Pelosi: It's "Categorically Impossible" to be Catholic and Hold Abortion is "Just a Choice"

Worth a Thousand Words

Nancy Pelosi: "My Family is Very Pro-Life"

Catholicism, Pelosi style

Archbishop Wuerl's Stand on Lawmakers Who Back Abortion Angers Some Conservative Catholics

NARAL Pro-Choice America Salutes Nancy Pelosi on Her Inauguration as Speaker of the House

More on Speaker Pelosi at Open Book

A Catholic Speaker in the House

American Life League's Judie Brown: Pro-Abortion Pelosi Insults Catholic Faith

Why Some Portions of the Old Testament Are Binding on Christians and Others Are Not

A MUST READ post at The American Catholic from my friend, Don McClarey regarding the Council of Jerusalem and why some Old Testament proscriptions are still binding on Christians while others are not:

... It is a good question and sometimes confuses Catholics and non-Catholics. The answer to the question is in the very earliest history of the Church. After the ascension of Jesus, the apostles went about the great task of making “apostles of all the nations”, and Christianity began to spread among Jew and Gentile alike. The question quickly arose as to whether Gentile converts would have to be circumcised (the males only of course!) and follow all of the Jewish laws regarding ritual purity...

[...]

Tensions over the issue of whether Gentile Christians should be required to follow all of the Jewish ritual purity laws, were settled doctrinally once and for all at the Council of Jerusalem in 49 AD which issued these decrees:

20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

The Gentiles were therefore not to be required to live like Jews. They were required to follow the ten commandments and the major teachings of the Old Testament, but the laws of ritual impurity were not to apply to Christians...

[Read the whole thing]

My Comments:
I don’t believe I have ever seen this issue explained more clearly and concisely. This should be a “must read” and a “must link” throughout St. Blog’s.

Save this one away in your favorites, folks. Keep it handy to access for whenever the topic inevitably rears its head. As Don says in the comments, "The Old Testament laws and their applicability to Christians is an issue that keeps coming up in current debates and Catholics need to know that the answer is a pretty simple one."

GoDaddy (et al) Can Go to Hell

The NFL needs to apply their "personal conduct policy" to their Super Bowl ads.

What a bunch of hypocrites. They rightly punish Ben Rapistburger for his abusive off-the-field actions, but condone ads that celebrate the mentality that leads to players' off-the-field problems in the first place: the objectification of women and sex.

And all while the kids are watching. I guess the Super Bowl is not fit for family viewing any more (and really hasn't been for several years now).


UPDATE
By the way, GoDaddy wasn't even the worst offender this year. No, that dubious distinction, at least in my book, goes to Pepsi Max. Jerks.

Archbishop Chaput: "Systematic Discrimination Against Church Now Seems Inevitable"

From LifeSiteNews:

SPISSKE, PODHRADIE, Slovakia, August 25, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - MUST READ Excerpts from Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput's address to the 15th symposium for the Canon Law Association of Slovakia on Tuesday:

Today's secularizers have learned from the past. They are more adroit in their bigotry; more elegant in their public relations; more intelligent in their work to exclude the Church and individual believers from influencing the moral life of society. Over the next several decades, Christianity will become a faith that can speak in the public square less and less freely. A society where faith is prevented from vigorous public expression is a society that has fashioned the state into an idol. And when the state becomes an idol, men and women become the sacrificial offering.

We face an aggressively secular political vision and a consumerist economic model that result - in practice, if not in explicit intent -- in a new kind of state-encouraged atheism.

To put it another way: The Enlightenment-derived worldview that gave rise to the great murder ideologies of the last century remains very much alive. Its language is softer, its intentions seem kinder, and its face is friendlier. But its underlying impulse hasn't changed -- i.e., the dream of building a society apart from God; a world where men and women might live wholly sufficient unto themselves, satisfying their needs and desires through their own ingenuity.

This vision presumes a frankly "post-Christian" world ruled by rationality, technology and good social engineering. Religion has a place in this worldview, but only as an individual lifestyle accessory. People are free to worship and believe whatever they want, so long as they keep their beliefs to themselves and do not presume to intrude their religious idiosyncrasies on the workings of government, the economy, or culture.

[...]

In the United States, a nation that is still 80 percent Christian with a high degree of religious practice, government agencies now increasingly seek to dictate how Church ministries should operate, and to force them into practices that would destroy their Catholic identity. Efforts have been made to discourage or criminalize the expression of certain Catholic beliefs as "hate speech." Our courts and legislatures now routinely take actions that undermine marriage and family life, and seek to scrub our public life of Christian symbolism and signs of influence.

In Europe, we see similar trends, although marked by a more open contempt for Christianity. Church leaders have been reviled in the media and even in the courts for simply expressing Catholic teaching.

The West is now steadily moving in the direction of that new "inhuman humanism." And if the Church is to respond faithfully, we need to draw upon the lessons that your Churches learned under totalitarianism.

[...]

Relativism is now the civil religion and public philosophy of the West. Again, the arguments made for this viewpoint can seem persuasive. Given the pluralism of the modern world, it might seem to make sense that society should want to affirm that no one individual or group has a monopoly on truth; that what one person considers to be good and desirable another may not; and that all cultures and religions should be respected as equally valid.

In practice, however, we see that without a belief in fixed moral principles and transcendent truths, our political institutions and language become instruments in the service of a new barbarism. In the name of tolerance we come to tolerate the cruelest intolerance; respect for other cultures comes to dictate disparagement of our own; the teaching of "live and let live" justifies the strong living at the expense of the weak.

[...]

Writing in the 1960s, Richard Weaver, an American scholar and social philosopher, said: "I am absolutely convinced that relativism must eventually lead to a regime of force."

He was right. There is a kind of "inner logic" that leads relativism to repression.

This explains the paradox of how Western societies can preach tolerance and diversity while aggressively undermining and penalizing Catholic life. The dogma of tolerance cannot tolerate the Church's belief that some ideas and behaviors should not be tolerated because they dehumanize us. The dogma that all truths are relative cannot allow the thought that some truths might not be.

The Catholic beliefs that most deeply irritate the orthodoxies of the West are those concerning abortion, sexuality and the marriage of man and woman. This is no accident. These Christian beliefs express the truth about human fertility, meaning and destiny.

These truths are subversive in a world that would have us believe that God is not necessary and that human life has no inherent nature or purpose. Thus the Church must be punished because, despite all the sins and weaknesses of her people, she is still the bride of Jesus Christ; still a source of beauty, meaning and hope that refuses to die -- and still the most compelling and dangerous heretic of the world's new order.

The full 12-page talk can be read here.

Definitely read the whole thing.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Pope Critical of Labour’s "Unjust" Equality Laws Ahead of UK Visit

Same-Sex "Marriage" and Religious Liberty

Bork Predicts “Terrible Conflict” Will Endanger U.S. Catholics’ Religious Freedom

Same-Sex "Marriage" and the Persecution of Civil Society

InsideCatholic on "The Unintended Consequences of Gay Marriage"

Secularist Attacks on the Catholic Church in Britain

Regular Guy Paul on What's Next for Same-Sex "Marriage"

Catholic Provocation?

Federal Judge: Catholic Church’s Position Against Homosexual Adoptions Justifies Government Hostility Towards Church

San Francisco's Hateful Anti-Catholic Resolution Prompts Lawsuit by Thomas More Center

Catholic League Says Gay Adoption Issue Spurring Anti-Catholic Bigotry

9th Circuit Rules Okay to Censor Terms "Marriage" and "Family Values" as Hate Speech

UK Catholic Schools Endangered by Sexual Orientation Regulations

Official Anti-Catholic Bigotry Returns to British Parliament

"A Charter for Suing Christians"

A Catholic Londoner on "The Last Acceptable Prejudice"

British Bishops: U.K. Sex Equality Law "Threatens Catholic Adoption Agencies"

UK: Churches "Could be Forced to Bless Gay Weddings"

The Coming Persecution of Churches Over "Gay Marriage"

The Coming Conflict Between Same-Sex "Marriage" and Religious Liberty

Contraception Key to Understanding Much Anti-Catholicism

Writing at both Creative Minority Report and National Catholic Register, Patrick Archbold explains "why contraception is the key to understanding much anti-Catholicism":

... So why would an adviser to President Obama’s on faith-based issues stand by such an offensive and unscientific remark? Why accuse the Pope, and by extension the entire Church—an organization that unarguably helps more people than any other—of hurting people in the name of Jesus?

The Washington Post article acknowledges the real reason behind the anti-papal backlash saying, “The condom has become a symbol of freedom and—along with contraception—female emancipation, so those who question condom orthodoxy are accused of being against these causes.”

Believe it or not, this is really about abortion. Knox and others recognize, wittingly or unwittingly, that the foundation of modern sexual liberation relies upon denying or removing any of the consequences of that sinful behavior, even to the point of killing. They also know that the contraceptive mentality underpins the entire culture of death. The contraceptive and utilitarian view of life and of procreation is the “mitochondrial Eve” from which all the horrors of the culture of death are descended. Abortion, ESCR, and euthanasia all call contraception “mother.”

That is why any acknowledgment, no matter how trivial, obvious, or scientific, that calls into question the magic consequence-erasing power of contraception must be attacked with all vigor...

[More]

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Boehner Says We Can't Have "Anti-Catholic Bigot" in White House, Calls for Obama Adviser to Resign

Obama Adviser Stands by Assertion That Pope Benedict XVI Is "Hurting People in the Name of Jesus"

Asking for an Ass Beating

Obama Names Pope-Basher to Faith-Based Initiative Board

Quote of the Day: Washington Post Columnist Sally Jenkins on the Tebow Ad

From a self-described "pro-choice" columnist at The Washington Post:

... Apparently NOW feels this commercial is an inappropriate message for America to see for 30 seconds, but women in bikini selling beer is the right one. I would like to meet the genius at NOW who made that decision. On second thought, no, I wouldn’t...

[Read the whole thing]

She goes on to talk about how Tebow is exactly the sort of responsible young man with a social conscience that women should be praising and celebrating. Definitely worth a read.

(Hat tip: Ed Morrissey)


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Feminist Hypocrites at NOW Attack Tebow Ad

Washington Post Calumniates Catholic Church

The Cranky Conservative has the details:

... grossly distorted and ignorant op-ed written by Robert McCartney.

Question: Why would Washington’s Roman Catholic archdiocese let a dispute over employment benefits, which would have little practical effect, cause it to give up doing valuable, publicly funded work helping the homeless and sick?

Answer: Because the church doesn’t want to miss an opportunity, however small, to oppose homosexuals’ right to wed.

[...]

Lest you think I’m guilty of engaging in distortrion myself, here’ the next paragraph.

That’s the lesson I’ve drawn from the dispute between the archdiocese and the D.C. Council over the same-sex marriage bill. Unless there’s a compromise before the council’s decisive vote, scheduled for Tuesday, the church would reduce its social welfare activities in ways that signal it thinks they’re less important than taking a stand against same-sex marriage.

Again, this is nothing but supposition. The diocese has taken a stance that McCartney disapproves of, and instead of engaging the arguments, he chooses to question the authenticity of his opponents. Disgusting.

I write this as someone who is not Catholic (I’m Protestant) but who has taken an interest in religious issues and the church since I helped cover the Vatican for the Associated Press in Rome in the early 1980s. I view the church as a tremendous force for good in the world in many ways, especially in its advocacy for the poor and against violence. The U.S. church supports more ambitious health-care reform than Barack Obama does, for instance.

Ahh, so we have the concern troll phenomenon at work here. The author is not even a Catholic, but he presumes he has the ability to read the hearts and minds of Catholic prelates. And the Church is a-okay as long as it only engages in actions and supports the same causes as the author...

[Read the whole thing]

(emphasis added)

Movie Producer Weinstein: "Hollywood Has the Best Moral Compass"

Big-time Hollywood movie producer Harvey Weinstein - whose production companies are noted for producing such virtuous gems as "Sex, Lies, and Videotape", "Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down!" (no wonder he thinks rape is no big deal), "Madonna: Truth or Dare", and "Pulp Fiction" - is not only more politically "enlightened" than the rest of us, but he is just oh so morally superior to you and me:

... In an opinion piece in London's the Independent, Weinstein Co. co-founder Harvey Weinstein, who is circulating the pro-Polanski petition, wrote: "Whatever you think about the so-called crime, Polanski has served his time. A deal was made with the judge, and the deal is not being honored. . . . This is the government of the United States not giving its word and recanting on a deal, and it is the government acting irresponsibly and criminally."

In an interview, Weinstein said that people generally misunderstand what happened to Polanski at sentencing. He's not convinced public opinion is running against the filmmaker and dismisses the categorization of Hollywood as amoral. "Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion," Weinstein said. "We were the people who did the fundraising telethon for the victims of 9/11. We were there for the victims of Katrina and any world catastrophe." ...

(emphasis added)

My Comments:
Anally raping a 13-year-old girl against her will is a "so-called crime"? And he's "not convinced that public opinion is running against" such criminal behavior? What a big, fat jerk! Yeah, only the "best" values come out of Hollyweird.

And it's not just the LA Times that is taking note of the moral and cultural divide between Hollywood and normal Americans. In The Washington Post, Eugene Robinson - who last week harshly criticized the Polanski apologists for defending Polanki's "grotesque" actions toward a 13-year-old girl - reprises his anti-Polanski role today by asking whether "conservative culture warriors who portray Hollywood as a cesspool of moral bankruptcy have been right all along". He answers, "Not really", but reading the entire piece it is difficult not to conclude that Robinson has grudgingly conceded otherwise.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
"Age and ability in the arts or anything else, in my opinion, does not excuse a crime"

Reminder: Roman Polanski Raped a Child [UPDATED]

"Age and ability in the arts or anything else, in my opinion, does not excuse a crime"

Actor Rod Steiger's ironic response (at least it's ironic in light of current events) in 1999 to film director Elia Kazan (89 years old at the time) being awarded an Honorary Oscar for Lifetime Achievement for such works as "On the Waterfront".

Paradoxically, Kazan's alleged "crime" was not a crime at all. He had informed on Hollywood commies who had colluded with the Soviet Union.

Drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl and fleeing the country to avoid the justice system, however, IS a crime, albeit one that Hollywood types tend not to get too worked up over and, in fact, sign petitions to excuse. May all these Hollywood pervert-apologist jerks see that dirtbag Roman Polanski do hard time rotting in a California prison.


UPDATE
Ed Morrissey has more on this topic in "Hollywood’s statute of limitations":

In order to completely understand the perverse nature of Hollywood’s almost-total support for director Roman Polanski in his effort to fight extradition and avoid the consequences of his conviction for statutory rape 32 years ago, recall their attitude towards another seminal director ten years ago. When the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) announced that they would give a lifetime achievement Oscar to Elia Kazan, many in Hollywood erupted in anger and protest. After all, Kazan had committed the unpardonable sin of naming names of Communists in Hollywood to the House Un-American Activities Committee.

[More]

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Reminder: Roman Polanski Raped a Child [UPDATED]

Reminder: Roman Polanski Raped a Child [UPDATED]

(Hat tip: Joe Carter at First Thoughts)

At Slate, Kate Harding writes the definitive rebuttal to all the Roman Polanski apologists:

Roman Polanski raped a child. Let's just start right there, because that's the detail that tends to get neglected when we start discussing whether it was fair for the bail-jumping director to be arrested at age 76, after 32 years in "exile" (which in this case means owning multiple homes in Europe, continuing to work as a director, marrying and fathering two children, even winning an Oscar, but never -- poor baby -- being able to return to the U.S.). Let's keep in mind that Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her, before we start discussing whether the victim looked older than her 13 years, or that she now says she'd rather not see him prosecuted because she can't stand the media attention. Before we discuss how awesome his movies are or what the now-deceased judge did wrong at his trial, let's take a moment to recall that according to the victim's grand jury testimony, Roman Polanski instructed her to get into a jacuzzi naked, refused to take her home when she begged to go, began kissing her even though she said no and asked him to stop; performed cunnilingus on her as she said no and asked him to stop; put his penis in her vagina as she said no and asked him to stop; asked if he could penetrate her anally, to which she replied, "No," then went ahead and did it anyway, until he had an orgasm.

[...]

Polanski was "demonized by the press" because he raped a child, and was convicted because he pled guilty. He "feared heavy sentencing" because drugging and raping a child is generally frowned upon by the legal system. Shore really wants us to pity him because of these things? (And, I am not making this up, boycott the entire country of Switzerland for arresting him.)

As ludicrous as Shore's post is, I have to agree with Fecke that my favorite Polanski apologist is the Washington Post's Anne Applebaum, who finds it "bizarre" that anyone is still pursuing this case. And who also, by the by, failed to disclose the tiny, inconsequential detail that her husband, Polish foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski, is actively pressuring U.S. authorities to drop the case.

There is evidence of judicial misconduct in the original trial. There is evidence that Polanski did not know her real age. Polanski, who panicked and fled the U.S. during that trial, has been pursued by this case for 30 years, during which time he has never returned to America, has never returned to the United Kingdom., has avoided many other countries, and has never been convicted of anything else. He did commit a crime, but he has paid for the crime in many, many ways: In notoriety, in lawyers' fees, in professional stigma. He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar. He cannot visit Hollywood to direct or cast a film.

There is also evidence that Polanski raped a child. There is evidence that the victim did not consent, regardless of her age. There is evidence -- albeit purely anecdotal, in this case -- that only the most debased crapweasel thinks "I didn't know she was 13!" is a reasonable excuse for raping a child, much less continuing to rape her after she's said no repeatedly. There is evidence that the California justice system does not hold that "notoriety, lawyers' fees and professional stigma" are an appropriate sentence for child rape.

But hey, he wasn't allowed to pick up his Oscar in person! For the love of all that's holy, hasn't the man suffered enough?

[Read the whole thing]

UPDATE
Additional commentary that highlights the blatant hypocrisy at play here.

HotAir asks just how liberal do you have to be in order to be excused for raping a 13-year-old:

Needless to say, this reminds me of the left’s umbrage at conservatives daring to bring up Chappaquiddick after Teddy died. Yeah, he left a woman to drown and then made jokes about it afterwards; he was for universal health care, though, wasn’t he? Same with Polanski: Dare we deny the man who made “Chinatown” an occasional drugging and raping of a child? Sure, a kid gets traumatized for life, but on the other side of the scale: “Rosemary’s Baby.” It’d be sweet if the left could come up with some sort of mathematical formula by which we could tell whether an artist or liberal politician has exceeded his quotient of moral indulgence. I’m assuming “Chinatown” wasn’t so awesome that Polanski would be excused for shooting a kid in the head at point-blank range, so evidently the film’s “worth” less than that but more than a child-rape. Let’s figure out just how much of a liberal hero you have to be to get away with certain crimes.

(emphasis added)

And Creative Minority Report asks us to "Imagine He Were a Priest":

Just for a moment I want you to imagine that Roman Polanski was a priest. Frightening, yes? But for the sake of my point imagine that he's a priest who drugged and raped a thirteen year old.

Imagine he's a priest who fled to France so as to avoid punishment for his crime. Imagine that he flaunted his freedom in America's face for decades.

Now imagine that Roman Polanski as a priest was apprehended by the police after all those years. Now, imagine what the media would be saying...

[More]

And writing at Politics Daily, David Gibson has similar thoughts:

... There is the obvious parallel to the cases in the Catholic Church, which have rightly scandalized the public and the media. Prosecutors and plaintiffs' attorneys have been dogged in pursuing these cases -- whether out of concern for their careers or for justice -- and the outrage was so widespread that the State of California created a one-year window in 2003 during which the statute of limitations on abuse crimes by Catholic priests (and others) was lifted. That meant the victims of men who were often long dead could finally get their day in court, or find some sense of justice and closure -- and for cases that were no more egregious than Polanski's abuse of Geimer. Polanski is alive, at least.

Comparisons are by their nature invidious. But what if Roman Polanksi were wearing a Roman collar? Would "Monsignor Polanksi" receive the same considerations? As Father Thomas Reese, a Jesuit, writes at the Post's "On Faith" site, "Imagine if the Knights of Columbus decided to give an award to a pedophile priest who had fled the country to avoid prison. The outcry would be universal." And rightly so, as Reese says. But Polanski gets an Oscar in absentia in 2003 and earns sympathy because he can't receive it in person...

UPDATE #2
I always did like singer-songwriter Jewel. This just confirms me in my high regard for her.


UPDATE #3 (30 September)
More from HotAir on the "how liberal do you have to be to get a get of jail free card" question:

... Polanski’s defenders cite his brilliance as an Important Director of Important Films as a reason it’s not only wrong, but outrageous, to punish him for his past crimes. This is similar to the arguments made in favor of releasing convicted cop-killer Mumia abu Jamal from prison, a point of view enthusiastically held by at least one high-ranking member of the Obama Administration: that fabled Rohrschach inkblot of liberal stupidity, Van Jones. Mumia’s delicate writing hand is much more important than the one he used to shoot Officer Daniel Faulkner in the back.

The Left also issues Get Out of Jail Free cards to people other than artists. The Polanski defense is a nostalgic karaoke rendition of the 1998 anthem “Perjury About Sex Is Not A Crime,” sung on Bill Clinton’s behalf. Perjury, infidelity, and what the antique feminist movement used to call “sexual harassment” were small prices to pay for Clinton’s inspirational leadership.

You can’t say the Left is entirely soft on crime, however. There are some scofflaws they’ll never stop trying to put behind bars. CIA agents who kept America safe from terrorists, for example. None of the terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay was innocent, or thirteen years old, and none of them were drugged, raped, and sodomized, but the Obama Administration is keen on prosecuting the people who interrogated them. If Roman Polanski had covered his victim’s face with a wet towel, maybe his defense would be a bit less energetic.

Another individual the Left wants brought to justice is Karl Rove, for the crime of being Karl Rove. The other charges against him range from being nebulous to absurd, but rest assured, it would be a great day for America if we could frog-march that villain into the vacant cell left behind by a liberated Mumia abu Jamal. Best of all would be the trial and imprisonment of George W. Bush, a fantasy the Left holds with the intensity of a small child shivering through a sleepless Christmas Eve. Bush actually did the stuff Clinton just talked about - liberating the people of Iraq from monstrous tyranny, fighting AIDS in Africa - but it earns him no slack from liberal vigilantes. He did more for women’s rights than anyone alive today - you can ask the women of Afghanistan about it, now that their faces aren’t wrapped in upholstery - but he didn’t do anything really important, like make a movie about the sexual oppression of suburban America.

[...]

George Bush’s first offense was denying America the brilliant, socially aware, technocratic leadership of Al Gore. The statue of limitations will never run out on something like that. Meanwhile, forcing a beloved Hollywood director to end his life in the slammer for a little error in judgment, like rape, would be unthinkably crass… as long as his Party credentials are in order. That is why the same people who turned their backs on Elia Kazan weep for Roman Polanski today, and will weep again at his career retrospective, on some future Oscar night. The Party may have changed its name, and adjusted its methods, but it still remembers what Kazan did to it, and his sentence extends far beyond the end of his life.

I'll never forget that bunch of leftist communist sympathizers in Hollywood - lefties like Nick Nolte and Ed Harris - sitting on their hands when Elia Kazan was awarded an Oscar for lifetime achievement. And when it comes to irony, it's hard to beat this quote from the late Rod Steiger regarding Kazan's Oscar award:

"Age and ability in the arts or anything else, in my opinion, does not excuse a crime,'' says Rod Steiger, star of "On the Waterfront."

Funny thing is, Kazan's informing on a bunch of commies wasn't a crime. Drugging and raping a little girl, however, is.

May all the Hollywood lefties and pervert apologists see Polanski do hard time in a California prison.

The American Catholic: "From Tiny Acorns Mighty Scandals Grow"

Don McClarey has an intriguing post at The American Catholic regarding ACORN, a group with close ties to the Democrat Party and President Obama, which has now decided to expand its organized criminal enterprise to include prostitution in addition to its normal voter fraud activities. Be sure to read the comments, as well. This comment, in particular, raises an interesting point:

Am I remembering correctly that back around the election, conservative Catholics were being scolded for objecting to the bishops funnelling a million or so from the Catholic Campaign For Human Development into these folks?

See also, Matthew Archbold's post at Creative Minority Report: "ACORN Should Be Closed For Stupidity".

One positive thing coming from this scandal is that it answers, once and for all, the question about what, exactly, a "community organizer" does.

"We're just community organizers,
just like the president used to be."

On the Corrupting Influence of Power

Key quote from Vogue Magazine's interview of Jenny Sanford (wife of philandering South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford):

Politicians become disconnected from the way everyone else lives in the world. I saw that from the very beginning. They’ll say they need something, and ten people want to give it to them. It’s an ego boost, and it’s easy to drink your own Kool-Aid.

Of course, there's also the Vogue interviewer's attempts to qualify Mrs. Sanford's devout Christianity in these 2 excerpts:

Her one-page statement saying as much was written without the help of spin doctors or media consultants. It came from her heart and her head. It mentioned God without making you squirm.

***
The Sanfords are conservative Christians, but they’re not the teetotaling, proselytizing sort. There are bottles of wine on the kitchen counter. Ayn Rand is on the bookshelf, but so is Gabriel García Márquez. The Bible sits front and center on the coffee table, alongside Forbes magazine. “You could be friends with her for 20 years, and she would never bring up the religious stuff,” says her friend Marjory Wentworth, poet laureate of South Carolina and a self-described liberal who once worked for The Nation.

In other words, "she's devoutly Christian, but she's cool", unlike all those other scary zealots. This betrays the interviewer's prejudices, which appear to be based more upon the straw man of religious conservatives painted by the left and their media cohorts than it does any actual experience the interviewer may have had with actually meeting and getting to know any religious conservatives. So, it's not surprising that, upon having the opportunity to ... you know ... actually speak with a devout Christian conservative, the interviewer is surprised that she doesn't fit the stereotype and therefore assumes that she must be different from all those other yokels. In fact, if the interviewer had bothered to get to know any other Christian conservatives, she would find that the majority of them are no different than Mrs. Sanford in how they live out their faith.

But for pure unadulterated media bias, this passage takes the cake:

Before Jenny Sanford came along, the options for wronged political wives were pretty poor. You could suffer silently (see Silda Wall Spitzer), deny everything (hello, Hillary), or make catty asides about the harlot who caused your husband to stray (Elizabeth Edwards). Then came Jenny Sanford.

Early this past summer, just as the world was savoring the news that yet another conservative Republican politician had tumbled from grace ...

The author of the piece starts off mentioning 3 Democrat sex scandals - by name - right off the bat, but then follows up with a reference to "yet another conservative Republican politician" who has disgraced himself. I make no apologies for the Republicans and their scandals, but that passage is just brazenly pathetic.

All in all, the key take-away from this interview, apart from Mrs. Sanford's quote about the corrupting influence of political power, is that Mrs. Sanford is a beautiful and dignified lady, and that her husband's greatest sin may be his rank stupidity in not recognizing and appreciating what he already has.

Dirtbag

Former Ohio Faith-Based Director Pleads Guilty

Our old friend "Eamon" (a.k.a. Eric McFadden) has pled guilty to pimping an underage girl for prostitution over the internet.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
What Did Gov. Strickland Know, and When Did He Know It (re: Eric McFadden)? [UPDATED]

Breaking: Catholic Democrat Who Once Headed Up Ohio's Faith-Based Initiatives Arrested for Running Prostitution Ring [UPDATED]

ABC Nightline: "Devout Catholic Christopher West Lays Out Unexpected Vision of What Sex Can Mean for Christians"

Hmmmmmm.
(Be sure and watch the video of the Nightline report)

(Hat tip: Notes on the Culture Wars)

Tony Blair Criticizes Pope's "Entrenched Attitudes" on Homosexuality

See my post on the subject at Catholics in the Public Square:

Blair Criticizes Pope's "Entrenched Attitudes" on Homosexuality; Former PM Hopes for "Rethinking", "Evolving", and "Sensible Reformation of Attitudes".

Harvard AIDS Prevention Researcher: Pope is Right on Ineffectiveness of Condoms in Preventing HIV / AIDS

Kathryn Jean Lopez reports at NRO:

“We have found no consistent associations between condom use and lower HIV-infection rates, which, 25 years into the pandemic, we should be seeing if this intervention was working.”

So notes Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, in response to papal press comments en route to Africa this week.

Benedict XVI said, in response to a French reporter’s question asking him to defend the Church’s position on fighting the spread of AIDS, characterized by the reporter as “frequently considered unrealistic and ineffective”:

I would say that this problem of AIDS cannot be overcome with advertising slogans. If the soul is lacking, if Africans do not help one another, the scourge cannot be resolved by distributing condoms; quite the contrary, we risk worsening the problem. The solution can only come through a twofold commitment: firstly, the humanization of sexuality, in other words a spiritual and human renewal bringing a new way of behaving towards one another; and secondly, true friendship, above all with those who are suffering, a readiness — even through personal sacrifice — to be present with those who suffer. And these are the factors that help and bring visible progress.

“The pope is correct,” Green told National Review Online Wednesday, “or put it a better way, the best evidence we have supports the pope’s comments. He stresses that “condoms have been proven to not be effective at the ‘level of population.’”

“There is,” Green adds, “a consistent association shown by our best studies, including the U.S.-funded ‘Demographic Health Surveys,’ between greater availability and use of condoms and higher (not lower) HIV-infection rates. This may be due in part to a phenomenon known as risk compensation, meaning that when one uses a risk-reduction ‘technology’ such as condoms, one often loses the benefit (reduction in risk) by ‘compensating’ or taking greater chances than one would take without the risk-reduction technology.”

Green added: “I also noticed that the pope said ‘monogamy’ was the best single answer to African AIDS, rather than ‘abstinence.’ The best and latest empirical evidence indeed shows that reduction in multiple and concurrent sexual partners is the most important single behavior change associated with reduction in HIV-infection rates (the other major factor is male circumcision).”

[Read the whole thing]

(emphasis added)